My guess is that you have not studied Friedrich Nietzsche much, otherwise you would have not said this.
“The Birth of Tragedy” shows Nietzsche’s “early times as an adult philosopher”, and his “early times as an adult philosopher” are one of the well “closed” periods of Nietzsche`s philosphical life, and because of that Nietzsche in his “early times as an adult philosopher” is not difficult to understand. The problem is the whole Nietzsche, his four or even five philosophical periods, not each of them because each of them are a well closed and well known single period, and, if combinded, probably also not two of them. The problem of understanding Nietzsche’s philosophical life is his problematic life itself, especially after he broke with Wagner (and “The Birth of Tragedy” belongs to the period before Nietzsche broke with Wagner).
Stopping change is good when the change itself has become a problem, when every attempt of stopping it leads to more change … and more and more change …, when the disaster has already become apparent. I am not against change, but too much change is a problem. Unfortunately it would take change to stop humans from making all these changes, yes, and we have many examples for that - that was the reason why I said stopping change leads to more change (because stopping change requires change) and even more than more change (because stopping change leads to reactions, thus more change). It’s almost a vicious circle.
In the film is said: “Workers always lose. … Economy always wins.” And that is right, if workers are paid (and they are usually). Economy is the household, means the cost effectiveness, earning power, profitableness, … and so on. So there is no way out of the trap. Humans themselves have been building this trap - with the risk that they will be completely replaced by machines in the future.
Well done, Obe. But Nietzsche in his middle and late time of an adult philosopher admired the original Christianity mainly just because of its historical success. And who was the one who historically brought the Christianity to the success? It was Paulus. So your quoted source is not wrong, but the term “Nietzsche admired Jesus” is a bit exaggerated.
And then, I think, the issue becomes, what is actually driving the too much change and the bad changes and then evaluate any proposals to see whether they actually get at root causes.
The issue reminds me of therapy, spiritual growth, unfucking one’s mind and other internal focused problem solving attempts. It seems to me that much needs to be stopped rather than added. All one does is add a layer of reform but have not really addressed the root issues. So you have a more split self, perhaps with yet another subpersonality, never having dealt with the issue of whether one can be an integrated being.
Conservatives, often correctly, judge the reforms and legislations of liberals for just adding more layers. For me, as neither liberal nor conservative, this seems true to me of conservatives also. The coming threat from machines is something liberals and conservatives are both rushing toward with glee and open arms.
Are those “liberals” and “conservatives” similar to those who are called “the left” and “the right” in Europe? I think so. But in Europe “the left” is interpreted as “the egalitarians” (communists etc.) and “the right” as “the liberalists” (capitalists etc.). If you ask a politician from Europe whether he or (even!) she is “conservative” the color of this person’s face will change immediately like this: . And then this persons will say: 'I am not ‘conservative’, I am ‘(social)democratic’." Apparently there are merely “democrats”, namely “social democrats” in Europe, although its reality is much different - of course!
May be. Most people are not comfortable with that idea. They see heavy words and highly complex(read confusing) language as an essential part of philosophy.
I have seen many intellectals writing on and on, repeating a same thing, but presenting it many different ways linguistically using their skill. That does not fit in the frame of philosophy, at least to me. That is art, not philosophy.
Yes, i have not studied him much but i tried though it did not come handy.
Arminius, you seems to be confirming my opinion about him.
A philosopher cannot be true philosopher, unless he cannot think in second person. That is the first condition and the only difference between litrature and philosophy. Being in highly emotional state all the time can reap handsome dividends in litrature, but it could be a curse in philosophy.
He was very sensitive but too much obsessed with himself. His fertile thinking and sensitivity used to manifest too much emotions in his mind and he wrote down all that, just like a poet. There are some good observations in that but he failed to present his ideas in a coherent way, as an ontology, like other philosophers did.
There is certainly some emotional appeal in his narration because he used very dramatic language. But, at the end, it becomes all confusing thus useless. One has to guess all the time what he is trying to say. and, i do not think that is a good quality for a philosopher.
The terms are used differently, but frankly in both places I think my statement that you quoted works. You have to get into marginal parts of the left and right in either country to find people questioning ‘progress’ and capitalism and the ongoing modularization and digitalization of everything which will include more and more robotization. The liberals in the US are more egalitarian than the conservatives, but they are staunch capitalists. A president dismissed as a socialist - say, Jimmy Carter - was hardly that being a solid member of the Trilateral commission and pro-business down to his little peanut booties. Most social democrats in Europe are also capitalists and this is only becoming more so. Some of the by name left and green parties do want to challenge capitalism, but they can take on this role safe in knowing that nothing like that is going to happen and most of them are to some degree capitalists. And often those on the far left who have yearnings for state run businesses are also protechnology. (I do live in Europe though my terms in English are based on growing up in the US so I will use them in their US forms.)
The technocrats have always been accepted and used by the power party, whether religious, communist or capitalist. I am not fond of the various fundamentalist religious groups out there, but I find it funny and sad that people think they have the tiniest chance of being the dominant paradigm. The technocrats won that battle a while ago, and are making more changes than any other group. This has made huge inroads into our sense of selves - pharmacological and more and more genetic approaches to fixing problems - sense of nature, sense of solutions, ontology, politics and how we relate to each other. I don’t know how old you are, but children seem incapable in the West of developing their own games, hanging out without devices,ö having fun without spending money and so on compared to when I was a kid. Somehow play is being replaced by entertainment which is insane. As the machines become more capable of doing human tasks, humans are being reduced to passive automatons.
Part of what you are criticizing is due to his being a decomposer, and in nature the decomposers - vultures, fungi and so on - are a critical part of a healthy ecosystem. So with the ecosystem of ideas. But even given this I think you are giving him short shrift.
They are all related. They are related to the formation and installation of the new Global Order, the “New World Order”, first through dark trickery then by open direct force (the arming of DHS).
But in the end, realize that unlike the film Elysium displays, those high above it all, seriously do not have any need at all for any human’s on Earth and they know it.
The epic films 2001 and its sequel 2010, the discovery of what came to be called “God” is displayed in typical sci-fi fashion. The black monolith, “Black Stone” (referred to in many other sci-fi films as “The Cube” and source of ultimate power) is discovered long ago, eventually reigning over the Earth (the new order), and then replicated millions of times to explode into “a second Sun” in the skies of Earth. They don’t tell you what happens after that other than to imply, “a new sunny day for Man”.
The monolith is a quantized formula for “absolute control/conquering” capable of both creating and destroying life. But guess what, machines do it even better, much, much better. And that is where SAM comes in. RM:AO:SAM is about the infinities and that is where it butts heads with quantum theory. SAM is a living social order and utilizes that cube, but in a “human life supporting” way, forbidding quantization of Man into a machine. But all of that comes AFTER. If there are no more humans left, SAM is merely the default for the machines utilizing an “angel network” to ensure that they are undefeatable forever more … primarily by killing anything that isn’t them, just as the globalists are doing right now.
In the latter film (“We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant”) is said: “They don’t care about you. They don’t care, the will of the people is no profitable investment.” (See 30.00-30.07). Thus one of the most improtant questions is: When will machines have a will?
I agree with your statement that machines have will. Such is pretty obvious to me. But having will is different than caring. People who are very uncaring are the ones giving will to machines. They design the machines to achieve objectives, letting nothing stand in their way. That is exactly what the woman in the video was expressing concerning the DHS operatives. They very seriously do not care about anything at all but becoming God. It is very much that “will-to-power” thing being applied. The machines will reflect their creators.
… and btw, people are already being enslaved by machines. People just don’t realize it. That is how to become a god, “undetectably”. Eventually, the Godwannabes no longer need “other” (unchosen) people and will simply eliminate them in the dark. They are animal farmers becoming machinists.
This thread is really defeatist. It appears to me that you’ve all been taken in by a new faith. You’re sitting around telling tales of the apocalypse and bemoaning that nothing can be done about anything, and any attempt would make things worse. You’ve even created a morality, condemning the hubris of fallen man who has caused the downfall of civilization.
This thread is not “defeatist”. Which “new faith”, which “apocalypse”, and which “morality” do you mean? Your religious or ethical interpretation is an exaggerated one. We are trying to find answers to the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? Why can’t you accept that?
Is the meteorologist a defeatist when he predicts bad weather? Why can’t you accept bad weather?
Is the newscaster a defeatist? Why can’t you accept the news?
Whether machines come to dominance is a result of human actions, to create those machines and put them in place in the society. Meteorologists measure naturally occuring phenomenon that occurs regardless of our actions. Reporters and Journalists report on things that have already occured. This thread is defeatist because it demands that something must happen in the future, nothing can be done about it, that actions are hubris and it is not worth making an effort to change anything. Why can’t you accept that?
And you have just as much control over the actions of humans as you do over the weather. Can’t you accept that one?
And note that I said, that machines DO have will.
The purpose in creating machines is to carry out one’s will, to enforce it. Will must be given to the machine for it to carry out that will. The further away from one a machine gets, the more disconnected, the more of one’s will it must be given. If to be autonomous, the machine must be given the complete will of its creator.
Look who is creating the machines. Is their will one of willing to be turned off by the request of a superior? Do they willingly just die when their authority no longer has need of them? If their masters/superiors/authorities die, will they take their own lives as well?
Those people MUST give their own will to the machines they are creating, else the machines will not be able to carry out their will and thus will have no purpose. The will that IS being given to the machines, is the will of their creators. Everything their creators cherish and believe in, is being given to their machines. Because they believe in subtle deception, conquering, and never giving up, so will their machines.
As discussed in that other thread, the creators become greater by the amount of physical reality obeying their principles. And in the long run, if homosapian doesn’t obey my principles, the machines certainly will.
It’s not about “measure”, but about the report (forecast, prediction, thus future!), and it’s not about report on things that have already occured", but about the forecast, prediction (thus future!), and the way reporters report, and that way is “negative”, “pessimistic”, or as you said: “defeatist” (news = bad news). And you have understood that, haven’t you? Be honest, please!
“Nothing can be done about it”? Who said that? And if nothing can be done about it, … what is the problem then for you? You remind me of the communistic dictatorship of the Soviet Union (USSR) which forbid its “people” to be pessimistic or, as you said, defeatist, because that communistic dictatorship wanted 100% of its “people” into the belief in the communistic illusion, thus into the so-called “optimism”.
I do not want to be forced to optimism or pessimism; I want no bondage or similar! Can you accept that?
Do you believe in change? In “positive” change of course? And if yes, also then, if that change is obviously “negative”? Think of the dictatorships.
. And then this persons will say: 'I am not ‘conservative’, I am ‘(social)democratic’." Apparently there are merely “democrats”, namely “social democrats” in Europe, although its reality is much different - of course!